Paras Ram vs State of Haryana and Others

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—The present petition has been filed by Paras Ram u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of first information report No. 962 dated 10-12-1991 registered at Police Station, City, Karnal, under Sections 463, 467, 468, 471, 475 and 476, IPC along with all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this case arc that Narinder Verma son of Sat Pal Verma moved an application u/s 340 and Section 195, Cr. P.C. in the Court of Mrs. Jayshree Aggarwal, Sub Judge IInd Class, Karnal in whose Court civil suit No. 195 of 1991, Paras Ram v. Joginder Pal and Ors. was instituted. The applicant alleged that the civil suit was filed by Paras Ram against five persons out of whom four had expired long back and only Jai Pal was alive. No summons were issued to Jai Pal. In order to keep all the proceedings secret Paras Ram with the help and collaboration of some active legal experts procured the presence of defendants by impersonating all of them. Their signatures were manipulated on the Wakalatnama and an ex parte decree was obtained subsequently. Paras Ram committed forgery and practised fraud upon the Court and, tried to garb property worth lacs of rupees. It was, thus, expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into the commission of the offence in relation to the proceedings in the Court and forgery of the documents produced and given in evidence in. the Court. It was further prayed that the identity of the persons who fabricated the signatures of the defendants who had expired could not be ascertained except by the investigation made by the police and so preliminary enquiry may be got made through the police. This application was sent by the Court to Police Station, City, Karnal and Sub Inspector Maha Singh registered the case on the basis of the same.

The petitioner alleged that he filed a civil suit against Joginder Pal, Dharam Pal, Jas Pal, Jai Pal and Prem Pal to whom the summons were duly issued. A poer of attorney was filed on their behalf by their counsel in Court on 13-2-1991. The case was then fixed for filing of written statement but none appeared and the defendants were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. The suit was finally decreed on 18-3-1991. Narinder Verma complainant who is the legal representative of one of the defendants in the civil suit filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18-3-1991 on the ground that all the defendants in the civil suit except Jai Pal had expired prior to the filing of the suit. He also moved an application u/s 340 and 195, Cr. P.C. in the Court on the basis of which case was got registered but the FIR was liable to be quashed as u/s 340 or Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was only the competent Court that could take cognizance of such an application. On receipt of the application only course open to the Courts was to make enquiry into the offence alleged to have been committed and if any offence was found to have been committed, then to make a complaint thereof in writing to a Magistrate of 1st Class having jurisdiction. Police had no power in regard to offences falling u/s 195, Cr. P.C. By sending the application to the police, the Court had committed a gross illegality.

In the return filed by the State it was alleged that the case was registered on the basis of complaint made by Narinder Pal Verma, which was sent by the Court to the Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Karnal and investigation the case was being done. Narinder Kumar Verma also filed a reply to the petition alleging that no summons were ever served on any of the defendants in the civil suits and the petitioner managed to procure the presence of the defendants by impersonating all of them.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that an application moved by respondent No. 2 u/s 340 and 195, Cr. P.C. could not be sent to the police for registration of a case as no Court could take cognizance of offences mentioned in Section 195, Cr. P.C. except on the complaint in writing of the Court where the forged documents were produced in evidence. Sections 195 to 199, Cr. P.C. were exceptions to the general rule that any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint even though he was not personally interested or affected by the offence. It was only the Court who could file a complaint. Section 340, Cr. P.C. prescribed the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195, according to which the Court was to hold a preliminary enquiry and then to make a complaint. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied upon State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh (1991) 3 Rec Cri R 276. In this case a complaint was filed in a criminal Court for offences under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code which was sent by the Court to Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, who recorded the first information report on the basis of that complaint. It was observed that the trial Court could not order registration of the case against the accused in terms of the complaint u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The necessary direction being illegal, action taken by the police in pursuance of it is also rendered illegal and the prosecution of the accused on its basis falls through on this account.

Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is as under :-

(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary :-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate; or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a court by Sub-Section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither made complaint under Sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the maning of such complaint, be exercised by the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed.

(a) Where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the court.

(4) In this section, ''court'' has the same meaning as in section 195."

A perusal of the section shows that when the Court thinks it expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 and that offence appear to have been committed in relation to proceedings in that Court, the Court may after such preliminary enquiry, if any, make a complaint thereof in writing. On receipt of the application from respondent No. 2, the only course open to the Court was to make an enquiry into the offence alleged to have been committed and after holding preliminary enquiry if it found that the offence had been committed to make a complaint thereof in writing to a Magistrate of first Class having jurisdiction. The application could not be sent to the police for registration of a case and investigation. The first information report in question has been registered in derogation of the provisions of Section 340, Cr. P.C. and is liable to be quashed on this ground.

As a result I accept this petition and quash FIR No. 962 dated 10-12-1991 registered at Police Station, City, Karnal and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom.